Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Study design and protocol for a comprehensive evaluation of a UK massive open online course (MOOC) on quality improvement in healthcare
  1. Sian K Smith-Lickess1,
  2. Tricia Woodhead1,2,
  3. Anna Burhouse1,3,
  4. Christos Vasilakis1
  1. 1 Bath Centre for Healthcare Innovation (CHI2), School of Management, University of Bath, Bath, Somerset, UK
  2. 2 West of England Academic Health Science Network, Bristol, UK
  3. 3 Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Shields, Tyne and Wear, UK
  1. Correspondence to Prof Christos Vasilakis; c.vasilakis{at}bath.ac.uk

Abstract

Introduction Massive open online courses (MOOCs) offer a flexible approach to online and distance learning, and are growing in popularity. Several MOOCs are now available, to help learners build on their knowledge in a number of healthcare topics. More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of MOOCs as an online education tool, and explore their long-term impact on learners’ professional practice. We present a protocol describing the design of comprehensive, mixed-methods evaluation of a MOOC, ‘Q uality I mprovement ( QI ) in H ealthcare : the Case for Change’, which aims to improve learner’s knowledge and understanding of QI approaches in healthcare, and to increase their confidence in participating, and possibly leading QI projects.

Methods and analysis A pre-post study design using quantitative and qualitative methods will be used to evaluate the QI MOOC. Different elements of the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness and maintenance) and Kirkpatrick (reaction, learning and behaviour) models will be used to guide the evaluation. All learners who register for the course will be invited to participate in the QI MOOC evaluation study. Those who consent will be asked to complete a presurvey to assess baseline QI knowledge (self-report and objective) and perceived confidence in engaging in QI activities. On completion of the course, participants will complete a postsurvey measuring again knowledge and perceived confidence. Feedback on the course content and how it can be improved. A subset of participants will be invited to take part in a follow-up qualitative interview, 3 months after taking the course, to explore in depth how the MOOC impacted their behaviour in practice.

Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the University of Bath Human Research Ethics Committee (reference: 2958). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and disseminated at conference and departmental presentations, and more widely using social media, microblogging sites and periodicals aimed at healthcare professionals.

  • MOOC
  • massive open online course
  • quality improvement
  • healthcare
  • evaluation
  • Kirkpatrick model
  • RE-AIM
  • education

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Twitter @SianK_Smith, @@ProfChristosV

  • Contributors SKS-L and CV conceived the QI MOOC evaluation study aims, methods and design. SKS-L drafted the first draft of the manuscript. CV, TW and AB reviewed and commented on the first draft, and SKS-L addressed their feedback and suggestions. All authors approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests Three of the authors (AB, TW and CV) of this paper are Lead Educators of the QI MOOC.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval This study was approved by the University of Bath Human Research Ethics Committee (reference: 2958).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.